If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

But anyway, regardless of the above, I still don't think it makes any sense to judge a franchise game on its own merits without stacking it up against its predecessors. It doesn't make sense to judge any game without context, and in the case of a series/franchise, the latest game has to be judged against its modern peers and its predecessors. If a reviewer isn't able to reach back and compare it to its predecessors, their opinion is worthless to fans of the franchise and to most anybody who played the predecessors. This seems self-explanatory to me.

Depends on the franchise. If it's something like Assassin's Creed where every new entry isn't that different from previous ones I'm sure fans will be better informed by a reviewer who has been following the series, rather than someone new to it who might spend a good portion of the review going over things that everyone who has played the previous games will know about already. But in cases like the Syndicate FPS? It has so little in common with the original that you're gonna get a better, more fair review from someone who can look at it with fresh eyes. All that fans of the original will bring to the table is whinging about how it isn't like the original and therefore sucks. Not very helpful.

RPS has fairly predictable opinions about most things, especially if you know the specific writer(s) contributing to something.

Wait, isn't that kind of a good thing? It means they're consistent and have a style. Unless you mean it translates to lack of objectivity (which, I always felt, RPS never claimed to be? Hence why they changed "reviews" to "wot I think"s).

But I see your other points about limited experience / exposure to classic games. Never paid attention to that, but will keep in mind.

Originally Posted by heywood

Jason Moyer and icemann pointed out the loss of "experience" at RPS, which I've noticed too. It helps explain some of the oddities of their top...ever lists, so I think it is relevant to the original topic.

That is a good point but isn't that simply representative of the gaming sphere as a whole these days? In the past decade we've definitely gained many newcomers to the gaming world who would naturally be biased towards newer games. That both explains RPSes writers, as well why that model may garner bigger audience being more relatable.

Originally Posted by icemann

many articles about a sequel and/or game inspired by a game of old where the reviewer has never played the original/game it's based off, which to me always = their opinion meaning nothing

Err, i think that's overly harsh, no? I can understand the argument for wanting reviewers to have a solid background and understanding of gaming classics, but at the same time one should not be required to have played a prequel to enjoy a new title unless they are a deliberate continuation on the story (i.e. Mass Effect or so). So I dont think discrediting someone for not playing original is necessarily evil.

I mean, even as a "seasoned" gamer I played SS2 before SS1, does my opinion mean nothing then?

Depends on the franchise. If it's something like Assassin's Creed where every new entry isn't that different from previous ones I'm sure fans will be better informed by a reviewer who has been following the series, rather than someone new to it who might spend a good portion of the review going over things that everyone who has played the previous games will know about already. But in cases like the Syndicate FPS? It has so little in common with the original that you're gonna get a better, more fair review from someone who can look at it with fresh eyes. All that fans of the original will bring to the table is whinging about how it isn't like the original and therefore sucks. Not very helpful.

Disagree entirely. In the case of a game that's named off an established franchise then it should be reviewed by someone who has played something from that franchise to give an informed view on how it stacks up against the already established universe + gameplay of the others to best judge whether the game is worthy of the franchise name.

Otherwise you have someone who knows nothing of the games prior and is not going to give worthwhile feedback.

For example, let's say you have a new Pokemon game come out. The best reviewer (that I would want to read the view from) is someone who has played the games prior to give the best views of how it matches up. Same thing for when it's a completely different game genre that the new game is going into. Otherwise their opinion means zero to me. If that's different for you, then that's for you, but for me I value most the opinion of someone whose fluent in that game universe.

In the case of Syndicate, if the reviewer hadn't played the prior 2 games I don't see the point in them being the choice at all as they'd not be able to know of the game universe as a whole. Fresh perspective? sure they'd have that. But then you could have called it "Guy in a Trenchcoat in a Building" and he'd be none the wiser. Much like movies if you give something the name from an established brand then people are going to stack it up against what came before and compare.

To give another comparison. Say for Terminator Genisys which came out recently. If I was to read a review of it. I would want to read a review from someone who had watched movies 1-Salvation rather than someone who`d never seen any of them. I just don't see the point at all. Completely worthless.

Terminator Genisys is a retooling of the previous Terminator movies, so obviously you'd need to know what happened before to make sense of what's happening in the movie. Games don't quite work like that, unless you're talking about something really narrative driven - like heading into episode 3 of The Walking Dead S1 without playing the prior two episodes.

A game is still something that can be good at being a game, or not. Whether a person has had previous experience with the franchise does not render their viewpoint on what works and what doesn't in a game null and void - especially if there's very little narrative or story connective tissue with the previous games.

Syndicate the FPS has so little to do with the previous games that, whether or not you've had experience with the franchise, it's easy enough to judge on its own merits -- which is that it's a pretty mediocre FPS all in all, and whether or not you like the Syndicate setting, or know more about it, does not change that.

For the user that's completely fair enough. But the reviewer should have prior knowledge with the game universe to provide an informed opinion. Otherwise it's just generic feedback based completely on genre rather than from all the established game lore / past games etc.

Either way that's my view. Your welcome to think differently, but that's my opinion on it. I'm not saying those who think differently are wrong. More so, just what for me I value.

As soon as I read the words "I've never played the other games before but" in a review, I switch off. Maybe that's just me, but their review has no value for me.

A review from a newcomer would be more applicable to a newcomer, while a review from a series veteran would be more relevant to a series veteran.

...Duh.

That's partly true, but I sometimes appreciate getting a fresh perspective on, well, anything, whether it's games, films, books or any other medium. Sometimes we like something because we're used to it, not because it's inherently better, and it happens all too often that veterans dislike changes because they are changes.

It's an unhealthy attitude to think that reviews are about being right or wrong, and judging them by how much they agree with our opinions. They're additions to a conversation; some are interesting, worthwhile additions, some are negligible but there may be a nugget of interest in there, and some can just be ignored.

More like horror and horror themed games. Seems like the writer ran out of games and started just throwing things on there. They could at least give the job to someone who's familiar with the genre. I can think of at least a few games missing from the list (like Clock Tower and Sanitarium, for example) that would have been more suitable than Blood or VTMB. If Blood is a horror game, then so is Doom and most shooters with monsters.

Yeah, the top horror games list is a clearly a list of the best games with horror themes rather than a scariest games list, hence inclusions like Alan Wake and Left 4 Dead 2. Good games yeah, but they didn't really scare anyone, did they? And Stalker:COP? I never finished that one, maybe it gets scary right at the end or something? Anyway, it's an alright list. There's a few on there I hadn't heard of previously.

I assume that's a typo, but whether it is or not it's one of my favourite new words, describing a fear of anachronisms.

Talking of scary games, now that I've got Dolphin up and running, I'll want to check out Silent Hill: Shattered Memories at some point. I liked what I played on the Wii, but I think I'll prefer KBAM over Wiimote + Nunchuk.

Dead Space 2 is on that list, but not the first one? Huh, I couldn't even listen to someone else play DS1, let alone play it myself due to being so terrified. Yet I ran through DS2 without much fear. The sound design in DS1 is prime horror in my opinion.

More like horror and horror themed games. Seems like the writer ran out of games and started just throwing things on there. They could at least give the job to someone who's familiar with the genre. I can think of at least a few games missing from the list (like Clock Tower and Sanitarium, for example) that would have been more suitable than Blood or VTMB. If Blood is a horror game, then so is Doom and most shooters with monsters.

Anyway, here's the full list for the lazy:

I gotta agree, as much as I love VTMB to death, I'd hardly pin it as a horror game. But I did like they included some unusual choices like the Twine game on there.

There are a number of old adventure games that deserved a mention, IMO: the Dark Fall series, The Dark Eye, Harvester, etc.

But at least they mentioned stuff like Realms of the Haunting, Anchorhead, Dark Seed, and Shadow of the Comet, even if they didn't put them on the list for some reason. Anchorhead in particular is one of the best genuinely Lovecraftian games ever made, as far as I'm concerned.

I think they got more right on the horror list than wrong, so I'm OK with it for the most part. They could have put a few others on there like Penumbra or Fatal Frame 2 or Slender, but it all comes down to opinion anyway.

That makes much more sense. The RPS article just throws things together. Yes, if you squint really hard, you can squeeze them together under the horror umbrella, but it's a bit like having a horror movie list that consists of stuff like The Shining, Beetlejuice, Jacob's Ladder, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Ghostbusters, Predator, Sixth Sense, Thing, Nightmare at Elm Street and Scary Movie.

Why the hell is a japanese console RPG number one on a PC RPG list? If Dark Souls is a PC RPG, then so is FF7. This thing has a fair amount of good classics in it (so many lists that don't include Pool of Radiance, Dungeon Master, any Wizardry or Ultima title, yet have room for every single thing Bioware/Obsidian ever made), but the placement seems completely random

Originally Posted by henke

Dead Space didn't do anything for me, horrorwise. DS2 had the eye surgery sequence tho, which is one of the most uncomfortable things I've played through. Ick.

I've tried to think why Dead Space isn't scary. I played DS2 before SS2 and after the intro sequence it was never scary to me, but SS2 is one of the scariest gaming experiences I've had even though its far less scary from a visual perspective (same goes for Silent Hill 1, an even more visually outdated game). I guess it comes to down to audio design. The lighting and environmental story telling in Dead Space 1 and 2 is very well done, but there's no subtlety. Whenever you meet monsters the soundtrack starts booming and the game gets super loud. It's just so obvious. Another contributing factor is likely the fact that I played SS2 with headphones on, so I was much more immersed in the experience.

Some Tom Cruise movie from the 2000s (can't remember the name) also had a similar eye surgery sequence, I wonder if it's ripped off from that?

Minority Report. Possibly inspiration, I guess? I don't know; and anyway, it wasn't as icky a scene to me as the eyeslice from Un Chien Andalou.

I think it's funny that people have started comparing SS2 to Dead Space when DS1 is essentially an homage to SS2 - environmental design, plot twist et al. Dead Space 1's ambient audio design was the best part about it, especially if you were playing it on surround speakers. The far-off clanging, the sound of things bumping in the dark, and the soft whispering behind your ears made for a memorably unsettling experience. DS1 was definitely more of a horror game than DS2, which did a pretty good job of escalating proceedings towards straight-out action horror, but it lost much of the atmosphere in the process.